Informed dialogue

THIS week consumers will have to brace themselves for an added burden to their already strained wallets as water bills increase. Yet the manner and the content of the increase raises questions on whether the hikes have been fair to the bulk of households and if the steps taken are transparent in manner.

Water charges in Sri Lanka, which is applicable to urban housing, follows a complex structure where both the unit prices and fixed charges vary depending on the quantity of water used. Supply is quantified in units, where one unit is a thousand litres. The announcement of a price increase from 1 October generated much attention, but the reporting lacked accuracy or clarity on the prices and related issues. Basic concerns of bureaucratic and democratic accountability were also poorly represented in the press.

Verite Research, a media think tank, in its latest report pointed out that based on the gazette notices showed that the press had not reported correctly the quantum of increase. Some reported a 20% increase; in fact, it is a range between 69% and 10% for consumption between five and 75 units. The highest increases are on those with the lowest levels of consumption – where earlier prices were also very low. Others reported the increase in rupees as 200, 236 and 302 respectively for 20, 25 and 30 units (the correct amounts including VAT are 185, 230 and 302).

During the announcement the Minister claimed that the increase reflected both three year inflation adjustments and charges for water wasted, or pirated, in the delivery system. The lack of specificity on prices in the reportage also allowed this explanation by the Government to go unanalysed and unchallenged.

The high percentage increases at the lower end reflects a change to the subsidy structure itself. The average consumption per residential connection is under 25 units. According to the latest increase, most average households will pay between 23%-69% with the highest increase imposed on those that use the least number of units. This lopsided system is completely contrary to the Government’s stance of providing relief to poor or low income families.

Verite research insists that the most significant absence was questions with regard to what principles, priorities and formulae are used to calculate the adjustments, and why this information is not available to the public. In general, on technical matters, including with regard to regulation of the stock exchange, the pricing of bus fares and petroleum pricing, there should be better reporting and discussion to foster informed public opinion.

The result might be a failure to make democracy relevant to public decision-making in Sri Lanka. Often the real advantage of democracy, which goes far beyond elections, is separated from public policy making because true transparency is not demanded by the masses.

Usually lack of analysis and pertinent questioning is backed by blanket criticism of the price increase. In most instances this promotes amongst the public a mindless resistance rather than an opportunity for informed consent or dissent. Routine displeasure expressed by the people is mostly dismissed by the government and no constructive discussions take place leaving the same set of actions to be repeated infinitely.

As the water price hike has demonstrated, there is a grave need for informed dialogue between policy makers and people – particularly on essentials.